The
focus for the last seven years, since the last G8 in England, has
been aid for Africa. In 1998, the churches organized the Jubilee Debt
Relief Campaign. The terminology used was to remind world leaders
of the Biblical Year of Jubilee recorded in the Old Testament where
the debts of debtors were forgiven. I remember going to a non-governmental
organization-NGO workshop where I interviewed a key leader about global
taxation. I asked him what they were going to do with the huge flows
possible from the global tax. He told me that there would be enough
for both Africa and the United Nations! Seven years later, both debt
forgiveness and the concept of global taxation have come full circle.
This is it. This is where the rubber meets the road.

Over
the last ten years, the idea of global tax has gone through a number
of revisions. Last year French President Jacques Chirac put the idea
of global tax on the leader’s agenda and promised concrete recommendations.
His proposed “International Solidarity Levy” would levy a tax on airline
tickets. Countries in favor include Brazil, China, and Germany. Currently
there are no international treaties that prohibit the creation of
a flat tax on airline tickets since a number of airlines already have
various types of taxes on airline tickets for airport renovation and
the like. The rate would be personalized according to country acceptance.
Revenues would be collected by the airlines and passed on to the respective
country which would supplement their foreign aid funds.

Before
the world commits to the French plan which has been laid on the table
and is in the process of being proposed now to the leaders of the
entire world at the September United Nations General Assembly, there
are a number of questions that should be asked, “How come Africa had
no problems while they were colonies of Britain?” and “Why has Africa
been the focus of wars and revolutions since the time of de-colonization?”
Complex questions have complex answers. For people seeking truth,
we will take a look at the Commonwealth, World Bank loans, NSSM200,
the conditions being put on Africa, and global taxation.

First,
let us take a look at what the Commonwealth of Nations is all about.
According to the Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia.org, “The Commonwealth
of nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states,
mostly formed by the United Kingdom and its former colonies.” Today
there are counties that acknowledge the British monarch as head of
state and those that only recognize the queen as Head of the Commonwealth.

The
old British Empire, we are told, was dismantled after World War II
beginning with India. When de-colonized, many countries became republics.
The London Declaration, which provided for members to accept the British
monarch as Head of the Commonwealth regardless of their domestic constitutional
arrangements, is now considered by many to be the start of the modern
Commonwealth.

The
population of the Commonwealth is about 1.8 billion people which comprise
about 30% of the world’s population. India is the most populous member
with a billion people while Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria have
more than 100 million people. The land of Commonwealth nations equals
about twenty-five percent of the world’s land area.

When
the UN was formed in 1945, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK had three
votes. As Britain de-colonized countries, they were made voting members
of the United Nations. Between 1946-1989, a total of 42 countries
were de-colonized, thus giving the Commonwealth the potential of 54
votes which includes those countries that were already independent.

Apart
from the votes which the Commonwealth has at the United Nations and
at other international organizations, it is important to understand
that the war, genocide, and the problems of poverty did not exist
in Africa before de-colonization. Interestingly enough, of the twenty
countries de-colonized between 1960-1969, seven are today Highly Indebted
Poor Countries. They include Ghana which is rich in gold, bauxite,
manganese and diamonds; Guyana which is rich in bauxite, manganese,
gold and diamonds; Uganda which is rich in copper and cobalt, Tanzania
which is rich in gold, diamonds and coal and Zambia which is rich
in copper.

So
why are they having trouble in today’s globalized world? We can go
back to World Bank loans during the 1970s which were forced on a number
of African countries. Under World Bank President Robert McNamara,
who served as president from 1969 to 1981, World Bank economists forced
their way into countries in order to come up with a financial plan
for their new development. Even the president of that country was
not privy to what the plan said, but was under the gun of the World
Bank to take loans to carry out these grandiose projects. The idea
was that the income generated from the project would provide moneys
to repay the loans. Unfortunately that did not happen. These are the
Highly Indebted Poor Countries which you and I are being asked to
bail out through increased foreign aid, debt forgiveness, and/or international
taxation.

If
this was not enough, there is more devastation that the African continent
was subjected to. Interestingly enough, it occurred AFTER de-colonization.
In 1974, President Richard Nixon was presented with a study by the
National Security Council which is called, “NSSM 200 - Implications
of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”
This 250 page report was a result of a four year study which he had
requested on August 10, 1907 in National Security Decision Memorandum
76. This memorandum recommended that the U.S. propose a United Nations
study of “world population problems and measures required to deal
with them as a top priority in the Second Development Decade.” When
the study was completed in May, 1974, it was sent to Nixon along with
a memo by Dr. Henry Kissinger, then National Security Advisor, in
which he recommended the need for the U.S. to provide leadership “in
world population matters.”

NSSM200
suggested that the U.S. needed “access to minerals which are necessary
for military and industrial uses and for which the U.S. must reply
on imports. Where these ‘strategic and critical’ materials are concerned,
therefore, U.S. economic stakes in the developing world coincide with
military considerations” (NSSM 200). Furthermore, it points out that
if the resources found in a number of Lesser Developing Countries
are important to the U.S. and if those countries develop with a normal
increase in population, they will have a greater need for their resources,
which means the U.S. will not have access to them. In other words,
it was to the advantage of the U.S. to keep these countries from developing
so the U.S. could have access to them.

The
report identified using foreign aid funds as a way of “helping” the
leaders of targeted countries to embrace population reduction. The
report placed the agenda of population reduction on the shoulders
of the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and a number
of UN agencies and commissions.

The
United Nations did exactly what the U.S. government told them to do.
They made population reduction a key focus of their agenda through
Agenda 21 and sustainable development. At the UN Conference on Population
and Development in 1994 in Cairo, African women asked representatives
from Planned Parenthood International why they could only get condoms
and not aspirins at their health clinics.

According
to the British publication, Newstateman, more than $400B of
overseas aid, channeled through African governments, the African people
are on the whole poorer than they were 30 years ago.

So
how much does Africa owe the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund? According to John Hilary from War on Want, about $532B is owed
by the 60 highly indebted poor countries. Currently only 18 countries
have qualified for debt forgiveness because they have met the conditions
World Bank conditions. The amount of debt forgiveness is $40B but
the debt servicing of the remaining $492B is $45B a year.

The
World Bank’s program for Highly Indebted Poor Countries-HIPC is funded
by pledges and paid-in contributions. Steps poor countries have to
take to qualify for a reduction in debt include: changing their structure
of government to be “more accountable”, make all financial figures
public (transparency), privatize their energy sector, water, electricity,
etc. and work through regional blocks with other cities and states
(this is regional government which is appointed, not elected officials).

Today
what you see is the plea for business to come in and partner with
African governments. The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders
Forum has called for “ten practical actions to support Africa’s development.”
One of them is, “Work with other businesses in partnership with civil
society organizations to support, social, health, human development
and enterprise development.”

At
every turn, it is public-private partnership, selling off government
owned resources, or privatizing through partnering with business.
This is seen in President Clinton’s New Partnership for African Development-NEPAD.
President Bush has set up his own initiative, the Millennium Challenge
Corporation-MCC, a U.S. government corporation, to administer funds.
An informational brochure handed out described it as “an innovative
new foreign assistance program designed to eliminate extreme poverty
and promote sustainable economic growth.” The purpose is to set up
public-private partnerships-PPP. PPP’s are business arrangements for
governments to transfer state-owned assets to. Since it is a business
arrangement, it is run by the corporate partner. As expected, there
are steps that countries need to take in order to be eligible, just
like the World Bank qualifications. For example, the MCC Board approved
a Compact with Cape Verde for approximately $110M. The Compact will
support their efforts in achieving its overall national development
goal of transforming its economy from aid-dependence to sustainable,
private-sector led growth.”

At
the 2002 UN World Summit on Sustainable
Development, an international public-private partnership, “The
Congo Basin Forest Partnership,” was announced. It has eight African
countries, six of the G8 countries, the American Forest and Paper
Association, and four major environmental organizations including
World Wildlife Federation as partners. Seventy-four million acres
of land in Africa will be moved into this partnership! In an interview
with a U.S. State Department official by colleague Joan Peros, he
refused to comment on any debt-for-nature swaps!

The
question that should be asked is “What will these countries have left
once they privatize their state owned assets and change their form
of government to meet a global structure of government?

In
an interview with an African official from an African consumers group,
he voiced the same concerns. They have made it very clear to G8 leaders
that they do not want any more aid with strings and privations.

On
the other hand, as reported by the British magazine, Newstatesman,
many African countries are turning to China for help. Nearly 700 Chinese
companies operate in 49 African countries. Chinese trade with Africa
will reach $30B next year—triple the level five years ago. By the
end of 2005, according to the French paper, LeMonde, China
will overtake Britain as Africa’s third-largest trading partner and
it is increasingly turning to Africa as a source for oil, timber,
and minerals for support its phenomenal growth.

The
Sierra Leone tourism board and the Chinese construction company Henan
Gouji recently signed a $220M agreement for a luxury golf course and
five star hotel. Their tourism minister said, “Why should we wait
for Britain or anyone else to get here? The Chinese are the ones coming
to invest now.”

Last
year, China’s export bank extended a $2B line of credit to the Angolan
government for infrastructure projects. In return for low interest
rates and a long repayment schedule, Angola will provide China with
10,000 barrels of oil a day and award China with large construction
contracts. In Sudan where the U.S. maintains partial oil sanctions,
China has become that country’s largest trading partner. The list
goes on.

Is
this a case of creating a major continental-wide problem and then
solving it to get the intended result which is a grand transfer of
wealth?

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

In
conclusion, it is not only the assets of Africa which are at stake,
but the whole transfer of wealth through our tax-dollars to support
the “war on poverty.” In an interview with French President Jacques
Chirac, I asked if the proposed “International Solidarity Levy” is
going to be duplicated once it is in place. He told me there are many
different proposals for global tax. I would assume that if the airline
tax is passed without great opposition, that it will open “Pandora’s
Box” to a countless number of other international taxes. Without Africa,
global taxation would not be possible. So, what about Africa?

Joan Veon is a businesswoman and international
reporter, having covered 64 Global meetings around the world in the last
ten years. Please visit her website: www.womensgroup.org.
To get a copy of her WTO report, send $10.00 to The Women's International
Media Group, Inc. P. O. Box 77, Middletown, MD 21769. For an information
packet, please call 301-371-0541

So
why are they having trouble in today’s globalized world? We can go back
to World Bank loans during the 1970s which were forced on a number of
African countries. Under World Bank President Robert McNamara, who served
as president from 1969 to 1981